What if U.S Military Spending were halved...

If U.S. annual military spending were cut in half to about $250 billion, and taxes remained the same, what kind of country would the U.S. become?

At $250 billion the U.S. would still have the largest military in the world, and the most effective defense force.

Cutting $250 billion, of course, would create enormous economic disruptions as funds moved from military to domestic spending.

At any rate, I wonder what kind of country the U.S. would become if its military was of a more reasonable size vis a vis its potential enemies.

Regards
S.

[Mr.Vicchio]

I don't know, what if we doubled the Military budget? What kind of country would we become?

What if we halved our military budget... and gave the other have to the poor? What kind of country would we live in?


What if we only cut the military by 20% percent? Would that make us something to be admired?

What if we didn't cut the military, but cut all domestic programs by 50%? What kind of country would we be then?

What if what if what if... what if you started real debatable topics with an argument, and a point of view instead of passive aggressive trolling like a 15 year year old trying to lucky on prom night but is too scared to unzip their fly?

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio What if what if what if... what if you started real debatable topics with an argument, and a point of view instead of passive aggressive trolling like a 15 year year old trying to lucky on prom night but is too scared to unzip their fly?

Interesting that you raise the notion of "passive aggressive".

I take you don't have a comment on the premise. I'll put you in the "Undecided or No Opinion" column.

Regards
S

[jose]

Serious Fun: TrueMajorityACTION.org

[Autolykos]

Keeping taxes at their current levels, I would hope that the federal debt would be paid off faster. Then again, I wonder if the federal debt really even matters.

- Rob

[xyzer]

sdbest..Your 'what if'' scenrio is interesting and opens up all sorts of contra opinion..
What if Murtha and other legislating predators cut out all earmarks which didn't apply to an actual bill?(some 10billion$ of a recent 90 billion$ military approp bill and I can't even guess how many in other related military appropriations)? What if cutting the military infrastructure put literally hundreds othousands of civilian employees out of work? Plus closing military facilities that have dependent communities around them? Plus reducing military purchases by 50% might impact a vast number of industries. And so many more what ifs?

It aint going to happen?

[Athena]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I don't know, what if we doubled the Military budget? What kind of country would we become? What if we halved our military budget... and gave the other have to the poor? What kind of country would we live in? What if we only cut the military by 20% percent? Would that make us something to be admired? What if we didn't cut the military, but cut all domestic programs by 50%? What kind of country would we be then? What if what if what if... what if you started real debatable topics with an argument, and a point of view instead of passive aggressive trolling like a 15 year year old trying to lucky on prom night but is too scared to unzip their fly?

If we double our military spending, the US economy will collapse for sure, because this spending is causing national debt and the national debt is being covered by inflation, and inflation is depreciating the value of the dollar. The bridge to our grandchildren's future might have a new black top surface and look great, but there are cracks in the foundation.

[Athena]

U.S. National DebtTax cuts and spending increases--largely military spending increases, plus there is a little debt left over from WWII. Check when and how did the national ...
zfacts.com/p/461.html - 32k - Cached - Similar pages

National Priorities ProjectMilitary spending in 2003 required 29 cents of every income tax dollar, with the debt taking another 20 cents, according to the National Priorities Project. ...
National Priorities Project - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

The Federal Pie ChartWe use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. ...
The Federal Pie Chart - 26k - Cached - Similar pages

Glossary of Military SpendingKey Terms Related to Military Spending ... Also includes interest on the national debt, which the government pays to individuals and institutions that buy ...
Glossary of Military Spending - 7k - Cached - Similar pages

Federal Budget: Spending and The National DebtUS Gross National Debt As Percent of Gross Domestic Product, .... Focuses on defense and military spending and off-budget expenses for the war in Iraq. ...
uspolitics.about.com/od/thefederalbudget/Federal_Budget_Spending_and_The_National_Debt.htm - 31k - Cached - Similar pages

The Defense Budget Is Bigger Than You Think: Newsroom: The ...To find out how much of the government's net interest payments on the national debt ought to be attributed to past debt-funded defense spending requires a ...
The Defense Budget Is Bigger Than You Think: Newsroom: The Independent Institute - 30k - Cached - Similar pages

[Athena]

If you have money to invest, these companies would be a good investment.

Private Military Corporations - SourceWatch Private military corporations, private military firms, private security companies, military services providers, the privatized military industry are all attempts to label the phenomena of private companies offering services on the world market that have normally been duties of national military forces or involve armed security detail for business in unstable regions.[1] Every service caters to security, and the growing need for security in a world wrought with differing economic, strategic, and military interests has provided a marketplace that is rapidly expanding. These services include risk advisory, training of local forces, armed site security, cash transport, intelligence services, workplace and building security, war zone security needs, weapons procurement, personnel and budget vetting, armed support, air support, logistical support, maritime security, cyber security, weapons destruction, prisons, surveillance, psychological warfare, propaganda tactics, covert operations, close protection and investigations. The industry is best defined by the services offered, and not by the company in particular. Companies may offer a vast range of services, not all of which, or in some cases, most of which do not fall into the loosely defined category of private military services. Other companies may only offer services in the security and logistics fields with few or any options outside those specialities. Many security companies have been around for quite some time and have adapted to 21st century necessities involving terrorism and business ventures in unstable regions. Others have been recently created to fill the market niche left by downsized militaries coupled with military endeavors in Iraq and Afghanistan. And others concentrate on peacekeeping missions and post-war civil training. The companies of today are used by governments, corporations, humanitarian groups and NGOs, media personnel, and the UN. Private military contractors are the second largest force in Iraq with over twenty thousand active personnel in the country. The industry is growing with some estimating annual contracts in the $10-$20 billion range and others citing numbers as high as $100 billion. Though a worldwide phenomena, the United States and Great Britain account for over 70% of the world's market for their services. The single largest issue introduced by the evolution of military services by the private sector is the degree to which corporations are now transcending the power of governments, rising as an influential variable within international and regional diplomacy, and redefining sovereignty in the 21st century. Advocates of the industry claim they are economically effecient and point towards the failure of the UN and the system of world governments to cease violence, genocide and civil war around the world. Those who are cautious of the emerging industry see this market as an encroachment into inherint government functions and question the real economic effeciency heralded as a true result of privatization. And there are, of course, many in between, who see benefits and drawbacks to the variety of services out there now on the world market.

[Athena]

We need enough pieces of the puzzle to see the picture. This here is tied to the changes in government made by Hoover and Roosevelt, and Prussian General before WWI was perhaps the first to see this was the future of modern warfare. Add the words of Tocqueville to this reality, and you will have a very different picture of our reality.

Military-industrial complex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The term military-industrial complex (MIC) refers to a close and symbiotic relationship among a nation's armed forces, its private industry, and associated political and commercial interests. In such a system, the military is dependent on industry to supply material and other support, while the defense industry depends on government for revenue. The term is most often used in reference to the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. As pejorative terms, the "MIC" or the "iron triangle" refer to an institutionalised collusion among defense contractors (industry), The Pentagon (military), and the United States government (Congress, Executive branch), as a cartel that works against the public interest, and whose motivation is profiteering. In an earlier draft of this farewell address, term read military-industrial-congressional complex. When Congressional leaders saw it, they requested that he remove 'Congressional' and Eisenhower did.

[Athena]

Tocqueville "Democracy in America"

No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country. Not indeed that after every victory it is to be apprehended that the victorious generals will possess themselves by force of the supreme power, after the manner of Sulla and Caesar; the danger is of another kind. War does not always give over democratic communities to military government, but it must invariably and immeasurably increase the powers of civil government; it must almost compulsorily concentrate the direction of all men and the management of all things in the hands of the administration. If it does not lead to despotism by sudden violence, it prepares men for it more gently by their habits. All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and the shortest means to accomplish it. This is the first axiom of the science. One remedy, which appears to be obvious when the ambition of soldiers and officers becomes the subject of alarm, is to augment the number of commissions to be distributed by increasing the army. This affords temporary relief, but it plunges the country into deeper difficulties at some future period. To increase the army may produce a lasting effect in an aristocratic community, because military ambition is there confined to one class of men, and the ambition of each individual stops, as it were, at a certain limit, so that it may be possible to satisfy all who feel its influence. But nothing is gained by increasing the army among a democratic people, because the number of aspirants always rises in exactly the same ratio as the army itself. Those whose claims have been satisfied by the creation of new commissions are instantly succeeded by a fresh multitude beyond all power of satisfaction; and even those who were but now satisfied soon begin to crave more advancement, for the same excitement prevails in the ranks of the army as in the civil classes of democratic society, and what men want is, not to reach a certain grade, but to have constant promotion. Though these wants may not be very vast, they are perpetually recurring. Thus a democratic nation, by augmenting its army, allays only for a time the ambition of the military profession, which soon becomes even more formidable because the number of those who feel it is increased. I am of the opinion that a restless and turbulent spirit is an evil inherent in the very constitution of democratic armies and beyond hope of cure. The legislators of democracies must not expect to devise any military organization capable by its influence of calming and restraining the military profession; their efforts would exhaust their powers before the object could be attained. The remedy for the vices of the army is not to be found in the army itself, but in the country. Democratic nations are naturally afraid of disturbance and of despotism; the object is to turn these natural instincts into intelligent, deliberate, and lasting tastes. When men have at last learned to make a peaceful and profitable use of freedom and have felt its blessings, when they have conceived a manly love of order and have freely submitted themselves to discipline, these same men, if they follow the profession of arms, bring into it, unconsciously and almost against their will, these same habits and manners. The general spirit of the nation, being infused into the spirit peculiar to the army, tempers the opinions and desires engendered by military life, or represses them by the mighty force of public opinion. Teach the citizens to be educated, orderly, firm, and free and the soldiers will be disciplined and obedient. Any law that, in repressing the turbulent spirit of the army, should tend to diminish the spirit of freedom in the nation and to overshadow the notion of law and right would defeat its object; it would do much more to favor than to defeat the establishment of military tyranny. After all, and in spite of all precautions, a large army in the midst of a democratic people will always be a source of great danger. The most effectual means of diminishing that danger would be to reduce the army, but this is a remedy that all nations are not able to apply.

Had he foreseen the symbiotic relationship of industry and the military hhis words of warning would have been even stronger.

[xyzer]

Athena your detailed sources on the deficit and national debt are enlightening! Unfortunately military spending is not the only source of government appropriations?
In Reagans time there was a definite
increase in military spending but it was matched by an increase in social spending. All areas of government increased. Clinton came along and he and Gore reinvented government by slashing spending(mostly military) but virtually letting the rest of government grow. The annual budget defecit decreased and it almost balanced one year, but the debt has grown with that one exception for a half century? As a side bar when push came to shove late in the Clinton admin the military was complainig about a lack of funding to do the job. Bullet proof vests and ammo were in short supply?
Try this figure on for size..
U.S. National Debt Clock

Our national budget defecits are down around 200 billion. How long and how much spending restraint will it take to turn the tide? Even make a dent on this enormous debt?

[RVonse]

Quote by: sdbest If U.S. annual military spending were cut in half to about $250 billion, and taxes remained the same, what kind of country would the U.S. become? At $250 billion the U.S. would still have the largest military in the world, and the most effective defense force. Cutting $250 billion, of course, would create enormous economic disruptions as funds moved from military to domestic spending. At any rate, I wonder what kind of country the U.S. would become if its military was of a more reasonable size vis a vis its potential enemies. Regards S.

250 billion would go a long way towards building massive wind farms desparately needed to make this country energy independent. It would be very difficult to argue that 250 billion would more wisely be spent this way.

As for layoffs in the defense industry, those jobs would instantly be replaced by hirings in the energy technology industry. So instead of a military spending complex what is needed today is energy spending complex.

As an added bonus.... a whole lot less people would be killed.

[Netopalis]

Well, when you consider that the only powers delegated to Congress by the Constitution are the preservation of a military, the power to regulate interstate commerce and the power to declare war, then where would that other 250$ billion go? Oh, that's right...fundamentally unconstitutional projects.

[Mr.Vicchio]

250 billion in wind farms... what a waste of money.

250 billion into Nuclear power.. that might be a worthwhile investment.